Microsoft Reportedly Working On TV Service For Xbox 360

tekgoblin writes "It seems that Microsoft may be in talks with media companies to license TV shows and movies for a new streaming service. With the addition of ESPN to the Xbox 360 over Xbox Live, Microsoft may be in a position to do the same for different content providers and charge a subscription fee for them separately. The idea is to better personalize content and only pay for what you want to watch instead of paying cable companies for all the channels you don't watch. Microsoft is looking into duplicating what they have done with ESPN to include channels such as Showtime or HBO and possibly Disney."

Comments

Will they offer MSNBC?

[perpenso]

Will they offer MSNBC?

This is likely to piss off AT&T

[pecosdave]

This is likely to piss off AT&T that they're work on the really horrible U-Verse service with. I would like to assume the XBox 360 would be more reliabe/work better than the U-Verse garbage, but the idea of red-ringing over a TV show does come to mind.

That being said - I think this is a very good and cool idea. It's convergence and the ousting of old tech that needs to go. Modern cable companies are getting too invasive and control/power hungry over what you watch. I'm not saying Microsoft wont be that way, but at least with them you can reap the benefits of paying less, whereas the cable companies just charge more, invade more, and progressively provide less.

Re:This is likely to piss off AT&T

[noidentity]

What? Another Microsoft partner screwed over only to find that they were being used as a testbed for Microsoft's own plans??

I remember in the 1990s when Microsoft was first doing tests on TVs, though I never realized it at the time. You know the blue screen that VCRs used to show when the input signal was corrupt.... need I say more?

Re:This is likely to piss off AT&T

[pecosdave]

I don't exactly feel bad for them.

Watching AT&T and Microsoft fight is like watching a guido fight a skin-head. It's worth watching and no matter which one loses it's an overall victory for everyone else.

Re:This is likely to piss off AT&T

[NeutronCowboy]

That being said - I think this is a very good and cool idea. It's convergence and the ousting of old tech that needs to go.

On the contrary - this is a VERY BAD Thing (TM). It's not convergence, it's fragmentation. You know why ESPN is on there? Because it's ESPN3 (formerly known as ESPN360) and because ESPN3 is available only via exclusive deals. Type in ESPN 3 on your computer - if you're lucky, it loads correctly. If you have the wrong ISP, there is no begging or pleading you can do with ESPN, you will not be able to access any of it outside a sign that says "ESPN3 is available through the following ISPs: [...]"

Content providers and integrated ISPs like Comcast love this approach, because they can charge a la carte for websites, just like TV now. And the people who have signed on with the new service sound like the usual suspects who love to ream the customers with special deals. If anything, this is a harbinger of things to come, like a plague of locusts or raining frogs.

I like my Xbox for what it is allowing me to do with gaming. I can also see though that the future of the XBox is a horrible experience that will make 1990's internet look like Nirvana.

Re:This is likely to piss off AT&T

[pecosdave]

Dude, I was hating Microsoft with a passion in 1998 because I was a Novell/Netscape guy, I saw first hand what their OS "patches" did to Netscape and the Netware client with a farce front of patching the OS.

You could say I'm a hate Microsoft early adopter.

(BTW - I started hating on Windows in 95 when I discovered taking Windows 3.1 out of my batch file and rebooting caused Doom to run great, starting Windows then exiting - no matter what I did memory wise otherwise caused Doom to run crappy.)

iplayer

[mjwalshe]

Just team up with the BBC and offer iplayer, Free in UK the rest of the world can pay say £15/$20 month - then we can have full length seasons of Dr Who - whats not to like :-)

Re:iplayer

[mjwalshe]

um they do it's the dodgy non doms and the freeriders from the Chanel islands we need to tax at the same rate as the rest of us.

Re:iplayer

[Mr_Silver]

Just team up with the BBC and offer iplayer, Free in UK the rest of the world can pay say £15/$20 month - then we can have full length seasons of Dr Who - whats not to like :-)

Funny you should say that as the BBC are launching their own set-top box here in the UK some time next year. Technically it's not just the Beeb but a consortium of content providers (BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Five), hardware providers (Humax, Cisco, Technicolor) and ISP's (TalkTalk and BT) who will provide a platform called YouView (formally Project Canvas) which will allow customers to watch and record Freview HD (DVB-T2) as well as stream or purchase content from a marketplace.

So for example, if you search for "Top Gear" you will get results that offer you the two shows running in the next fortnight, the two shows on BBC iPlayer, the box set from one vendor and the ability to rent (stream) from a couple of other vendors.

There is a one off payment for the box and, like the current Freeview service, no subscription fees for about 50 channels (of which about 20 or so are of interest to the majority of people). There are no restrictions on where you live or which ISP you are with. Although the hardware manufacturers are limited at launch, more will come on board as time goes by.

It's like Google TV but for the UK, with a slicker UI and has the backing of major content providers before it starts. In other words, a properly thought out end-to-end proposition.

Re:iplayer

[delinear]

This seems to be more of MS just not "getting it". They didn't seem to get that XBMC turned an alright games console into an amazing games console (I would have been all over licensing and/or bundling that thing if I was MS), and now they don't get that, if they want to be the media centre in people's homes, they can't approach that by offering less than the other consoles. I know their argument is probably that it will detract people fromt the paid for content, but realistically it already does that, since every license payer in the UK gets it at no extra cost anyway and most people have access to either freeview or a PC or one of the other consoles or a video enabled phone or... you get the picture. Is it really good for MS's business model that, every time I want to watch iPlayer, I turn off the XBOX and turn on the Wii?

Re:iplayer

[mjwalshe]

Heretic Burn the Heretic :-)

Cost

[tatman]

GoogleTV provides this with HBO. I think its a great idea but its too expensive at $30 a month. I love the idea of paying only for the TV programming I want. But the prices are going to have to fall significantly to make it worth while. Thankfully ESPN is free, for now :)

Too Noisy

[Wingsy]

I used to use my Xbox 360 for Netflix. Too damn noisy. Way too noisy. The fan noise is not noticeable when playing games but for TV it's a show-stopper. Netflix is a better experience with an Apple TV anyway.

Re:Too Noisy

[drinkypoo]

The problem is not whether I can pay for it. The problem is whether they deserve $5/month. If buying Gold would completely disable all advertising I haven't specifically gone looking for, including the animations on the dashboard, then I might consider paying. Frankly, Microsoft is getting paid way too well for running a matching service that exists to show you ads and try to make you buy stuff. I don't have low enough latency to make good use of Gold (and indeed, during the latest trial I discovered that none of the games I own and love to play permit you to simply jump into a multiplayer game with people you don't know, so it's kind of a moot point anyway) so what am I paying for? The "convenience" of being able to watch Netflix on my 360 with inferior output to my PC with an nVidia card?

Windows Media Center

[Mr_Silver]

Microsoft probably have a good chance of making this work on the basis that Windows Media Center is actually a very capable DVR and they have several customers of their MediaRoom solution. I've been running Windows 7 Media Center in my home for several months now and it's extremely slick and does the job reasonably well. It's UI is light years ahead of all the others - although that is probably helped by the fact that the hardware I'm using is significantly more powerful than your usual set top box.

My only real complaints are:

1. The EPG provider Microsoft uses in the UK is absolutely dire. They frequently forget meta-data and get the series link information wrong - which of course means that the experience is impacted. Our US friends don't seem to have these issues as their meta-data is correct.
2. Even if you have the codecs installed, it cannot browse or play non-WTV or DVR-MS without the use of something like MediaBrowser (which itself, is a slick application).
3. When you do get non WTV or DVR-MS files playing, FWD and RWD don't work. This can be fudged with a plugin called MediaControl but it isn't perfect.
4. Some times it reports that it cannot record a show on a tuner because there is no signal. Doesn't matter what button you press, it'll show you the same error several times before finally dismissing.

Compared to my old Topfield (which was considered one of the better DVR's here in the UK yet couldn't handle daylight saving and botched up all your recording timers, had a ghastly UI, put the wrong metadata in your recordings if you padded the start time, had a completely broken series link and would only work reliably if you flashed it with custom firmware) 7MC is a work of art.

Desire the issues, once you've worked around these and installed a couple of other (free) applications then you have a very capable DVR which can not only record and playback live TV, but access your DVD rips from multiple locations around the house (with the correct meta-data and cover art), view, schedule and play back recorded shows via your mobile or desktop web browser and play back streamed video from a number of online sources.

Yes, Boxee or XBMC would be a better choice if you just want to play video - but the GF wants to watch and record live TV which means that WMC is a good option.

Re:sigh

[noidentity]

Disney? Who watches that? Why does Disney even have a tv channel?

Because they still have lots of unskippable ads left over from their DVD production.

Re:sigh

[Opportunist]

Disney channel is a godsend for every parent on this planet. Or so they think.

Disney offers "entertainment" (read: Keep 'em occupied) for kids from age 0 to ... well, god knows, while at the same time you, as a parent, needn't worry that there will be any violence AT ALL, aside of a teeenie little bit of cartoon violence that is immediately resolved and where you get immediately shown that nobody was hurt. The figures tumble and wobble and fall and bounce but they don't get hurt.

And it goes without saying that there is no sex. Romance, sure. Some guy falling in love with some girl, sighing and looking dreamy (or vice versa, don't worry, no male/male or female/female or other weird combinations possible), but you may rest assured that even a kiss is nothing more than a quick peck on the cheek.

You can park your kids in front of that and ignore them for a while. And they will love it and watch it, the TV controlling your kids while you can do something more rewarding than spending time with them. Ain't it great?

The question I'd have for such parents is just: Ok, no violence, no sex/nudity/whatever else you wouldn't want your kids to see, no reality whatsoever. Just a company firing episode after episode of their cutesy cartoon characters at your kids, interrupted by commercials telling them that they can have those cutesy cartoon characters at home and that they have to buy every piece of plastic crap Disney poops out?

Really think it's a good idea?

Re:Again, I'll get nothing

[delinear]

Even worse, here in the UK we can't even get BBC IPlayer (a service that should be available to me as a license fee payer, and that is already Wii and PS3, as well as PC, I believe), apparently because MS refuse to give it away free to silver users and the BBC's charter won't let it be included in the paid gold package.

Re:Again, I'll get nothing

[bigtomrodney]

In the UK and Ireland you can get Sky TV over your XBox. They even have Pay per view for sports and films.

Re:Viable alternative to set-top boxes?

[Lumpy]

Why?

Get a RoKu box and get what you want now for a $99.00 box that does not have an additional $60.00 a year access fee like the Xbox360 does

Let's not get too excited

[wynterwynd]

One thing I can all but guarantee, it won't be cheaper than cable/satellite. The a la carte television service is not a new idea. The same people that fucked it up when it was explored back in the early cable days and who fucked it up for Netflix, Hulu, and every other streaming service will be there for this one. And no, it won't be Comcast or AT&T or any of the people that actually bill you. They WANT to provide people the most flexible service they could, that would draw more customers.

No, this will be reinvented to death by the content providers.

You will see $10 monthly subscriptions for each media producing company's channel packages, tiers of packages for the big ones like Turner or Disney, and my guess is you'll end up with a la carte that costs just as much as your bundled cable TV does if not more. You will likely be able to buy comparable "bundles" at the same cost per month as traditional subscription television. But if you truly want a la carte programming, you'll end up paying as much or more for fewer overall channels.

The carriers (Comcast, ATT, etc) are not going to give you a choice of ignoring the providers' experimental networks and shows, they're locked into paying for them just as you are by contracts printed in the 80's and they already oversell their ad space with the channels they have. They would start a riot with their advertisers over the suddenly very narrow marketing window if they didn't force you to accept some channels you don't want. If they did, new channels would never get off the ground and niche channels would die out from lack of funding.

Well, why do I need a channel anyway, you might ask. Let me just watch the shows I want and stuff the channels.

That is the reason why Netflix and Hulu are getting the push back on providing streaming content that they are. The entire business system is based on a model that presumes upon timeslot-based content to promote and target prime advertising and shows. The technology to provide the media has changed, but the business model behind it never had to. Now it is suddenly bucking hard against what they see as the iTunes to their RIAA, coming to slay the lumbering beast of their outmoded business plan. There are simply too many people who ALL have to be on board for it to work.

I'm not saying it will never work, but I'm saying don't get too excited about this announcement. Microsoft will play ball with content providers, it won't try to leverage them into the 21st century (like Google or Apple). You might see it change down the road for the better as studios and networks start to realize that they cannot dictate how we watch their programming anymore. If they want to join the rest of us in the World of Tomorrow, some big sweeping changes to their business has to take place first. And that will be slow and painful for them, and for us in the meantime.